Remember?

[Gunny]

Seems to be a purposefully forgotten piece of trivia ... wasn't it the libs who for 13 years anytime the subject of Saddam and/or Iraq came up tried to end every argument with:

"Well, Bush didn't finish the job."

Notice how it's never brought up nor anyone called to task for it? And you'd think I was alone in a cemetery every time I've brought this little fact back into the light for all the response I get from the left.

So perhaps one of you lefty-types would undulge me, strap on a pair, and explain to me how the outcome in Iraq would have been any different in 1991 than it is now.

We were there. We wanted to go in. We didn't know until later that Bush had to promise not to invade in order to get his AFB in Saudi, unrestricted used of Arab airspace, and support from the Arab nations in general.

Any takers?

[Kathianne]

Seems to be a purposefully forgotten piece of trivia ... wasn't it the libs who for 13 years anytime the subject of Saddam and/or Iraq came up tried to end every argument with:

"Well, Bush didn't finish the job."

Notice how it's never brought up nor anyone called to task for it? And you'd think I was alone in a cemetery every time I've brought this little fact back into the light for all the response I get from the left.

So perhaps one of you lefty-types would undulge me, strap on a pair, and explain to me how the outcome in Iraq would have been any different in 1991 than it is now.

We were there. We wanted to go in. We didn't know until later that Bush had to promise not to invade in order to get his AFB in Saudi, unrestricted used of Arab airspace, and support from the Arab nations in general.

Any takers?Agreed. The Saudis and Pakistanis are not our friends.

[gabosaurus]

What "job" are we speaking of here?
Seems as though Saddam didn't like what was going on in Kuwait, so he decided that he would invade and do things his way.
Then, a dozen or so years later, Bush didn't like what was going on in Iraq. So he decided to invade and do things his way.
Funny thing is, Shrub hasn't "finished" his "job" either.
Incompetency breeds incompetency.

[avatar4321]

Remember, Remember
The fifth of Nobember
The Gunpowder treason and plot

I know of no reason
Why the Gundpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.


Sorry:) thread just made it pop into my head.

[Gunny]

What "job" are we speaking of here?
Seems as though Saddam didn't like what was going on in Kuwait, so he decided that he would invade and do things his way.
Then, a dozen or so years later, Bush didn't like what was going on in Iraq. So he decided to invade and do things his way.
Funny thing is, Shrub hasn't "finished" his "job" either.
Incompetency breeds incompetency.

Your lack of actual knowledge on the topic is somehow not surprising to me.

Saddam invaded Kuwait on a bogus claim that Kuwait's oil originated in Iraq, and that Kuwait was a historical province of Iraq anyway. Translation: Saddam wsa up to his ears in debt from the Iran-Iraq War and decided he'd just take Kuwait's oil production capabliities to repay said debts.

The "job" as in the accusation from the left, from 1991 to 2003 was that President Bush did not "finish the job" because we don't roll into Baghdad and depose Saddam in 91. Didn't matter that actual fact was that Bush agreed had to accept the restriction of not invading Iraq/deposing Saddam in order to get teh previously mentioned accomodations. What mattered was left-wingnuts with about as much understanding of the actual situation as you display here, just whipped up some bogus accusation so they could wag their fingers.

In the terms of the ceaefire the US spells out specifically that it retains the right to act unilaterally if Saddam did not comply with UN mandates. If you use the simple three strikes rule, military action should have been resumed around 1993 -- not 2003.

And "funny thing is", insofar as "finishing the job" within the context of the statement goes as propagated by left-wingnuts everywere for a dozen years, that mission was accomplished a couple of years ago.

Next ....

[glockmail]

Seems to be a purposefully forgotten piece of trivia ... wasn't it the libs who for 13 years anytime the subject of Saddam and/or Iraq came up tried to end every argument with:

"Well, Bush didn't finish the job."

Notice how it's never brought up nor anyone called to task for it? And you'd think I was alone in a cemetery every time I've brought this little fact back into the light for all the response I get from the left.

So perhaps one of you lefty-types would undulge me, strap on a pair, and explain to me how the outcome in Iraq would have been any different in 1991 than it is now.

We were there. We wanted to go in. We didn't know until later that Bush had to promise not to invade in order to get his AFB in Saudi, unrestricted used of Arab airspace, and support from the Arab nations in general.

Any takers? Didn't know about that agreement. Since when does Liberal policy have anything to do with consistency? It is simply based on emotions at any particular time.

[Gunny]

Didn't know about that agreement. Since when does Liberal policy have anything to do with consistency? It is simply based on emotions at any particular time.

Which agreement? The one President Bush had to make in order to get an airfield and unrestricted use of Arab airspace? 'Tis a fact. It was a political coup as well as a strategic one. It solidified most Arab states in opposing Saddam, and supporting the coalition. Even Syria played a marginal hand in the game on our side.

[Dilloduck]

Which agreement? The one President Bush had to make in order to get an airfield and unrestricted use of Arab airspace? 'Tis a fact. It was a political coup as well as a strategic one. It solidified most Arab states in opposing Saddam, and supporting the coalition. Even Syria played a marginal hand in the game on our side.

Don't hold you breath. Glock is right. Context flies out the window and the big picture doesn't exist when thier political blinders are on.

[typomaniac]

Seems to be a purposefully forgotten piece of trivia ... wasn't it the libs who for 13 years anytime the subject of Saddam and/or Iraq came up tried to end every argument with:

"Well, Bush didn't finish the job."

Notice how it's never brought up nor anyone called to task for it? And you'd think I was alone in a cemetery every time I've brought this little fact back into the light for all the response I get from the left.

So perhaps one of you lefty-types would undulge me, strap on a pair, and explain to me how the outcome in Iraq would have been any different in 1991 than it is now.

We were there. We wanted to go in. We didn't know until later that Bush had to promise not to invade in order to get his AFB in Saudi, unrestricted used of Arab airspace, and support from the Arab nations in general.

Any takers?Here's a surprise grenade for ya: I think Poppy Bush made the right choice in 1991.

Only thing is, he didn't do it for the reasons you gave in your last paragraph. He did it because he knew that Iraq would turn into the shithole it is now if he "finished the job."

Too bad you love his boy so much.

[Gaffer]

excellent response Gunny. And Glock is right, libs only respond with emotion, with knee jerk response at that.

[Gunny]

Don't hold you breath. Glock is right. Context flies out the window and the big picture doesn't exist when thier political blinders are on.

Oh I'm not doubting glock is right. I did not address that portion of his statement since that portion of his statement directly supports the entire premise of this thread.

[glockmail]

Which agreement? The one President Bush had to make in order to get an airfield and unrestricted use of Arab airspace? 'Tis a fact. It was a political coup as well as a strategic one. It solidified most Arab states in opposing Saddam, and supporting the coalition. Even Syria played a marginal hand in the game on our side. Yes, that one. I'm not doubting you, I just never heard anything official about it. Or maybe I did and forgot.

[glockmail]

Here's a surprise grenade for ya: I think Poppy Bush made the right choice in 1991. .... No doubt that most Libs think this way. They simply state Bush 41 was wrong because they prefer to belittle a former GOP President than voice the truth, as the truth has no value to them.

[Gunny]

Here's a surprise grenade for ya: I think Poppy Bush made the right choice in 1991.

Only thing is, he didn't do it for the reasons you gave in your last paragraph. He did it because he knew that Iraq would turn into the shithole it is now if he "finished the job."

Too bad you love his boy so much.

Your opinion is not supported by actual fact. We did not invade Iraq and depose Saddam at that time because of the agreement Bush had with the other Arab nations.

That is not saying your argument does not have merit insofar as the effect of invading and deposing Saddam. Most military-types recognized the sectarian violence as a highly probable outcome in 1991. So it was a real consideration even then.

That does not negate the factual reasons we did not pursue "much" beyond the Iraq border.

You would also be incorrect in your assumption that I "love his boy so much." I disagree with a lot of things Bush does. I just don't agree with the contrived crap the left loves to throw at him to see if it sticks.

If you'd do a little research, you would probably find more than a couple of threads where this issue is discussed, and I stated then and will state now that I did not agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Not that I believe his justifications were not valid. Most were. It is just my opinion that from a regional, geopolitical standpoint, Saddam was the lesser of two evils if having to choose between him, and a possible fundamentalist, radical Islamic regime propped up by Iran, Syria, or both.

[Pale Rider]

Not that I believe his justifications were not valid. Most were. It is just my opinion that from a regional, geopolitical standpoint, Saddam was the lesser of two evils if having to choose between him, and a possible fundamentalist, radical Islamic regime propped up by Iran, Syria, or both.

I pretty much agree with that, and we better think before we do anything like that in the future. In other words, I don't feel there was enough foresight used before we invaded Iraq. I remember when we did too, I was almost surprized. I wondered why. I thought we were more or less using military posturing and muscle, not actually planning to invade. It boils down to, I think we need to be smarter about situations such as Iraq in the future, and less anxious to use the military.

[Gunny]

I pretty much agree with that, and we better think before we do anything like that in the future. In other words, I don't feel there was enough foresight used before we invaded Iraq. I remember when we did too, I was almost surprized. I wondered why. I thought we were more or less using military posturing and muscle, not actually planning to invade. It boils down to, I think we need to be smarter about situations such as Iraq in the future, and less anxious to use the military.

The military is ill-suited to the post-invasion task it was assigned with all the political caveats that diametrically oppose logical strategy. If we just had to take Saddam out, taking him out and leaving would have just hastened the eventual outcome we are seeing.

From a professional standpoint, I would have ensured every rock in Afghanistan was polished, top AND bottom, and that I "lost" my maps pursuing the Taliban when they went into Pakistan.

It worked for Col Robert H Barrow in Operation Dewey Canyon II. He pursued the NVA across the Laos border, blew them up, THEN called for permission; which, was denied of course.:laugh2:

He wore 4 stars and was Commandant of the Marine Corps when I enlisted.